Citation Nr: 1320099 Decision Date: 06/21/13 Archive Date: 07/02/13 DOCKET NO. 13-06 082 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Columbia, South Carolina THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a head injury. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a scar of the forehead. 3. Entitlement to service connection for seizures, to include as secondary to a head injury. REPRESENTATION Appellant (the Veteran) is represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD L. Cramp, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active service from September 1947 to January 1952. This appeal comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a July 2011 rating decision of the RO in Columbia, South Carolina. The Veteran also initiated appeals as to the denial of service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus; however, during the pendency of the appeal, in a December 2012 rating decision, the RO granted both claims. The appeal as to those issues is accordingly resolved. In reviewing this case the Board has not only reviewed the Veteran's physical claims file, but also his file on the "Virtual VA" system to insure a total review of the evidence. Please note this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2012). 38 U.S.C.A. § 7107(a)(2) (West 2002). The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC) in Washington, DC. VA will notify the appellant if further action is required. REMAND On the VA Form 9, received in January 2013, the Veteran checked the box indicating that he wanted a BVA hearing at a local VA office. On the attached hearing options form, the Veteran specified that he was requesting a BVA hearing to be held by a BVA Board member visiting the Columbia, SC Regional Office. The March 2013 VA Form 646, submitted by the local American Legion representative, noted that the Veteran would present his argument in a hearing with the Board at the RO in Columbia. The appeal certification worksheet completed by the RO notes that the Veteran requested a hearing on his VA Form 9. However, the March 2013 VA Form 8, completed by the RO, erroneously indicates that a hearing was not requested. Subsequent correspondence to the Veteran from the RO and the Board, while mentioning that the Veteran could request a hearing, does not acknowledge or address his specific request for a Board hearing on the VA Form 9. Written argument from the Veteran's representative in April 2013 also does not mention the hearing request. However, there is no indication that the Veteran's request for a hearing has actually been withdrawn. Neither the Veterans Appeals Control and Locator System (VACOLS) nor the Virtual VA system contains correspondence or documentation indicating a withdrawal of the hearing request. Based on a review of the record, the Board finds that there was an administrative error in processing the Veteran's appeal such that the requested hearing was never scheduled. The Veteran must be afforded the opportunity to attend the requested Board hearing. He may specifically withdraw his request, if he so chooses. Since the type of hearing requested by the Veteran is scheduled by the RO, the case is REMANDED for the following action: (Please note, this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2012). Expedited handling is requested.) A Board hearing to be conducted at the RO should be scheduled in accordance with the docket number of this appeal. The Veteran should be notified of the time and place to report for the scheduled hearing. The Veteran should be notified that, if he does not wish to attend a hearing, he should withdraw his request in writing. The Veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This appeal must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all issues that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2012). _________________________________________________ MICHELLE L. KANE Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of the appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2012).